Comments
10:05 pm 22/02/2012
Quaektem
Quote by marksyzm:
You are someone who only defined politics by what you list in your own country, and won't ever see outside of that
Yup. And since I only discuss American politics that's as it should be. If I were to get involved with UK politics it would be wise to conform to the terms associated with your system in order to keep the discussion clear.
Quote by marksyzm:
Total bollocks coming from someone who admitted the republicans of today aren't the republicans of yesterday.
Uh... no. It's those on the left that want to keep saying that. What my position has been is that the Republicans have swayed between Federalism and Classic liberalism throughout there existence and since elements of both continue to exist within the party it would be asinine to credit Democrats with every Republican accomplishment and saddle the Republicans with every Democrat failing.
If there is a specific instance where this is not what I stated please link it so I can see the full context of the comment you're referring to.
3:02 am 23/02/2012
Viscera
I guess I'm lost as to why the idea that Q is being faithful to the current definitions of the terms used (republican, liberal libertarian etc) is being difficult, or wrong or demanding people nbend to his definitions. Is it really reasonable to ask him to use every known derivatives when he is making a point about politics. If the term has a different meaning in the UK, then point that out. But really are we going to sit here and complain that he uses the term libertarian as it is applied in the US? He didn't change the meaning of liberalism from
Quote:
Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]
to modern liberalism
Quote:
Modern American liberalism is a form of liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for social justice and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1]
3:06 am 23/02/2012
Viscera
well if the terms would stop evolving, then we could settle on one, but somewhere the ubiquitous "they" keep redefining the terms
1:00 pm 23/02/2012
marksyzm
Quote by Viscera:
I guess I'm lost as to why the idea that Q is being faithful to the current definitions of the terms used (republican, liberal libertarian etc) is being difficult, or wrong or demanding people nbend to his definitions. Is it really reasonable to ask him to use every known derivatives when he is making a point about politics.
It's not about derivatives, it's about the original definition. If you sway too far from that in a political society then you lose all touch with your own proper ideology. Carry on down this route and it'll be just as much Chinese whispers as the rewritten stories in the Bible.
2:16 pm 23/02/2012
Viscera
And that I agree with, but the problem is, if a person engages in a conversation, and the nomenclature of the day says that a "liberal" is "X" and a "conservative" is "X" then the archaic definitions used however many years ago are irrelevant. You have to be able to connect the two definitions and then make sure the position that you are articulating is current. So although the present day republicans want to be known as conservatives (although they aren't) and they want to be linked to smaller govt and personal responsibility (classical liberal) and they want to be thought of as pushing for freedoms and maintaining individual rights (presently libertarian platforms) if the person you are talking to doesn't know the history of the terms, then it is of no use. Being able to identify what the present day terms mean, and seeing if that candidate/person/devotee is accurate to the terms is the really important thing, imo
2:18 pm 23/02/2012
Viscera
Quote by marksyzm:
as the rewritten stories in the Bible.
thus the reason that knowing the original languages and the paradigms is important, then you don't have to rely on whether a translator got it right. Thanks for making my point in a couple of different conversations 
2:57 pm 23/02/2012
Quaektem
If it helps you any Mark I'll start calling myself a Liberal Democrat (as Jefferson was) That'll clear things up for sure!
Quote by marksyzm:
It's not about derivatives, it's about the original definition. If you sway too far from that in a political society then you lose all touch with your own proper ideology.
I agree, however since my influence is limited in maintaining the old definitions I can only educate people to the history of the terms, which is what I attempted to do about a month ago.
This is also why I often pull up definitions, to clarify what the words mean instead of what they are assumed to mean.
4:28 pm 23/02/2012
backroom
The task of defining the labels should fall at the feet of those who feel the need to apply them.
10:12 pm 23/02/2012
Viscera
well, you were the one who taught me about classical liberalism, so if we hadn't had that copnversation, I would still be ignorant of that fact. Sometimes an exchange of inofrmation comes about without need
10:20 pm 23/02/2012
Quaektem
Quote by backroom:
The task of defining the labels should fall at the feet of those who feel the need to apply them.
Oh, I do and quite often. Mark was the one that seemed a bit put off by it.
Of course there are those that simply decide that no label will ever apply to them... they are a bit more frustrating to discuss things with.
11:13 pm 23/02/2012
backroom
My point was the labels themselves...
not the definitions.
Quote by Quaektem:
Of course there are those that simply decide that no label will ever apply to them
More precisely... no label applied by others will ever apply to them
4:10 am 24/02/2012
Quaektem
Quote by backroom:
More precisely... no label applied by others will ever apply to them
I would love a list of self-applied labels to use. I leave plenty in my own wake.
Can you explain the correlation between these two comments, I feel I missed something:
Quote by backroom:
The task of defining the labels should fall at the feet of those who feel the need to apply them.
Quote by backroom:
My point was the labels themselves...
not the definitions.
not the definitions.
2:57 pm 24/02/2012
Viscera
Quote by backroom:
More precisely... no label applied by others will ever apply to them
I think people typically don't like the connotations that come along with labels others put on them, that's why they object. Usually the clarification comes afterwards, like when I'm called a zealot. That is an accurate label, but the connotation is pejorative. So, I'll say I'm zealous about things as opposed to being called a zealot. Just an example from my own situation.
4:07 pm 24/02/2012
backroom
Thats pretty close.
I am a registered democrat. Whatever that means to whoever is fine. It's when they start trying to define and set tighter limits on what I am based on what "democrat" means to them based on whatever conceptions or misconceptions they hold.
Same concept as someone who admits smoking MJ for 30 years being called a drug addict by someone else.
Same concept as the anti-abortion crowd calling the opposition pro-abortion.
Your labels are only valid in your mind. They help you to define others in relation to how you define yourself. If your self definition is flawed... and they all are... the labels you apply to others will be flawed also.
7:37 pm 24/02/2012
Vormid
In simplest terms "Are you really a poopy-head? No? Don't sweat it when someone calls you one".
10:45 pm 24/02/2012
Viscera
yep, but fighting against the labels is not just frustrating, but counter productive. If I don't like the republican platform, I don't register as one. And what is a poopy head to one person is a hero to another. I guess the real definition depends on your commitment to the cause. IRA soldiers were called freedom fighters by my dad, but called terrorists by those they opposed. Just sayin